tv [untitled] August 11, 2012 4:30am-5:00am PDT
country, we are the only one that does not have the devices employed. even the memphis police department, which is the benchmark of training, decided it needed to add electronically controlled devices for officers. even prior to the of those officers trained in crisis prevention were provided with the impact weapon, and perhaps this would be a good time to show you exactly what i am talking about. this is the weapon system that
is deployed in memphis with a crisis intervention team. every one of their officers is trained. it is used in the concept of contact and cover. you have the initial officer who does what they can to try to de- escalate based on the skills they have developed, whereas the secondary officer has this system. he is not there all the time, but this system is available in the event force needs to be used to identify a set of circumstances that goes beyond the individual being a threat to themselves but a threat to the public. and we have not had an incident of lethal force used against an
individual who only posed a threat to themselves. as please hold it down. if you continue to speak like that, i am going to have to ask you to leave the room. >> as the most recent event took place, we did realize we did not necessarily have all less lethal option that was readily available and would be appropriate. it leaves the officers with one option, and that is the use of lethal force. the hope is it would allow the department to embark on a pilot program so only the officers said have been retrained, we do have a class scheduled for october 22, which we hope to be
a little larger in terms of the size. we have had losses of about 30 officers, and perhaps the availability of our space and an additional teaching resources will allow for a larger group to be trained, but this group we currently have the represents every working shift and at every district station would be the ones that would go through the training and have these systems deployed. unfortunately, i did not receive any reaching out from any other organization other than taser international. they offered their services in terms of coming into this commission and discussing the equipment itself and the improvements that have been
made. in my discussions with law enforcement agencies, one of the most telling was california highway patrol. i will share these with folks. the california highway patrol -- i am going to have to read these, because the numbers are small. they deployed the taser system in 2007 on a partial basis, and in 2008 dathey employed id on a department-wide basis. since 2007 they have received a significant 25% decrease in the use of lethal force. the implication is that with the use of other non and less lethal
options, they have not had to rely on their firearms in order to mitigate potential public safety issues. other significant issues is they have received a 21.5% reduction in total use of force, department wide. a significant issue is 58% reduction and officers injured from 2007 until 2010. conversely, studies by the department of justice respectively show about when agencies -- show that when agencies have these weapons deployed, you see a 40% to 50% reduction in injuries to suspect during the course of these encounters, so all in all, you
are seeing positive decreases in injuries both to officers and to the public when these weapons systems are deployed, and at the end of the day i believe it was dr. lee who made a presentation in 2010 when he spoke before you, and he indicated -- i was going to quote him, but i seem to have lost my thing. good night he said we are not standing against electronic control devices. what he said was, if i were to be arrested, if i had to be shot with anything, a taser versus a fire arm, and that is the bottom line. we want to mitigate the need for lethal force while providing another option, and i truly believe if that option was in place on july 18, it would have
been a different outcome. >> having gone through two of these presentations, can you explain the difference between the gun you have showed us and the taser? pain compliance would not work with a firearm as opposed to the taser. >> i can do that. you are talking about a 40 millimeter projectile that is very debilitating, and the person on the other end of its typically is going to have an immediate response in terms of serious injury in most cases. get a weapon systems, the electronic control devices, the purpose of which is to immediately mobilized -- in mobilize that individual, stopping them from engaging -- to immediately immobilize that
individual, stopping them from engaging in harm. you see an immediate response. with firearms you do not necessarily see any immediate response in terms of behavior stopping. i was looking at the video from detroit where an individual jump over the counter and began shooting at individual officers inside that enclosed area. that person sustained a lethal shot to the heart but continued to engage the officers for 15 or 20 seconds after having received the deadly shot, so the difference between the electronic devices and our firearms, you have an immediate response of electronic control devices. you may not necessarily have an immediate response to the firearms. parks throw him out.
>> i am hearing from the commit -- >> throw him out. >> i am hearing from the commissioners it is time for this individual to leave. >> [inaudible] i am going to a better place. >> i am sure you will get kicked out of more. >> punk. >> excuse me. do not talk to a commissioner like that. >> do not talk to me like that. >> just for the record, i think the public, and -- we have had people make comments before, and i do not think throwing the mouth is the thing to do a. >> for the record, and -- throwing them out is the thing to do. >> for the record, i am trying to make a presentation, and he is thriving the route --
depriving the rest of us of our rights. >> we have a power point presentation from taser international to give you more science behind it, and i think it is important to note if the commission approves this program we will go through a normal process in which our note is to compete for designated needs with the designated equipment that will be afforded to the various competing body is out there -- bodies out there. vice president marshall: a couple of questions. you were a lieutenant.
i have sat through this a couple times. i would like to just hear the of the good stuff, but i will not get to do that. i ain't -- to hear the updated stuff, but i will not get to do that. there are only two major police departments that did not have tasers. is that correct? >> i believe there is only one. >> memphis and san francisco, and now it is san francisco. memphis has now put tasers into their apartment. what is the reason? >> the reason is pretty much what we are facing, and this is the method of planes -- deployed. everyone of them was trained in
that. it has it is its -- has its limitations. you do not want officers walking around the community with this strapped around their shoulder. >> even though they have that system we adopted, it was not enough n.? >> correct. >> did the san francisco sheriff's department use tasers? >> it is my understanding they did apply tasers. >> she brought a witness. >> the taser darts flew across the country, and it would bee good for continuity. >> those he have a limited amount of time. we have our heart doctor who has to get home for family reasons. >> his flight leaves at 9:00.
>> you have to go home to be with your family, and i think a lot of people do too. i would like to get you out here. how long is the presentation? perhaps it is going to be 15 minutes. >> if you do not mind, we will go without presentation and then we will get to you. commissioner dejesus has a question for you. commissioner dejesus: i think you said that only tasers reached out to the department? >> they reached out to me. i would like to get the point of contact so that can be included, but they reach out to me. >> of thing i found disturbing is -- the thing i found disturbing is we should reach
out. what i would like to know is have you look at the cost of providing weapons, providing the training, the calibration equipment? have we look at what all the costs would be for doing the type of program? we looked globally of what some of the costs are. i believe the commission -- the company commissioner chan has mentioned has not deployed successfully. taser has cornered the market in that regard. >> i have looked up the total cost of farming -- arming the cit, all the things we are going to need. have we got a ballpark figure of the total cost? >> int would be inappropriate to
engage in those specific negotiations with any one company. we have got the permission to engage in a contract, and we have given the opportunity for others to present if there are others who have viable options. >> two more questions. have they made any offers to the department to give the training for free? free startup costs, free weapons or offers to the department like that? >> i have not engaged taser. to the extent they are here of their own costs is the extent of what they are providing us. >> let me ask one other question, and i am going to be blunt. i didn't mean to be
disrespectful, but i have seen the presentation and founded to be one-sided. any doctors is a funded, i would appreciate that it was mentioned that it was funded by taser as well. >> part of is things that are funded by tax dollars. goall of these were funded throh a grant to study these weapons systems. i can actually provide the commission with a copy of that. i do believe i have a single copy as well. it is probably the most studied weapons system and has been exposed to law enforcement in its history. there are some 300 studies.
>> i am actually directing this to the taser international presentation. if it is something they funded, i would appreciate if they let us know. >> unless there are additional questions, i will bring ait up. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i appreciate you allowing me the time to speak. i will try to be as quick as i possibly can to make sure you have adequate time as well. i have been with the company for 12 years since the company's first move into law enforcement. i have a long history with the company and addressing some of the concerns you are talking about today. i do not want to rehash some of information brought up today. what i like to do is point out what was already mentioned,
which is there are really only two studies to be looked at. all of them are available on our web site. there are plenty of ways for you to take a look at all of those, and i cannot say that none of them are funded by taser. some of them are. that is our responsibility. we should fund studies, the same way ford does crash tests. the two i would give reference to are the department of justice and the national institute of justice. they recently have begun a five- year study into this technology, and their findings are that there is nothing conclusive but would lead them to deploy devices for their officers. i will leave you with that. goowe are currently at 1700 agencies.
>> how many agencies? cracks 16,900. there are about 18,000 -- trucks 16,900. there are about 18,000 agencies in the country. similar as house for does its crash tests, the -- similar as how ford does its own crash tests, that does not mean chevy can take those. that is something to look into. we are in about 107 countries. i think it is important for this committee to understand we are in britain and france. areas where they do not the play -- deploy fire arms, they use tasers. the firm is a thing as a tank --
is a think tank looking at different aspects. the study showed the reducing suspect injury rates, and that is a crucial component to the gap. we are not just looking at making it safe for the officer. we are looking at making it safe for the community as well. around the country, some of the things you have seen is reduction in workers' compensation, which means officers are not being injured because they are going hands on. if an officer is going hands on, they are risking themselves and the community to potential escalation of force. you are seeing in houston production of officer injuries lead to reduction of costs in the city. in michigan they deployed this with their insurance company. detroit is not covered under this -- but there management company actually goes out and have fus funds, because they sea
reduction in injuries to suspects. there 100 of them are studies on our products that have then peer reviewed, the department of justice, the pentagon. those are ones that are not funded by taser international. that can give you an idea of the volume of studies that have been done. when you look at other tools out there. i will skip through a couple of this for the purpose of time. you were provided the power point presentation. i want to dive into where you were talking about where we are out today versus grass we were
the officers carry a lot of tools on their belts today. blasting we want to do is to make it inconvenient to -- the last thing we want to do is make it inconvenient to carry. it is important to keep in mind. the thing we are allowed to do in name x2 is now have the ability to be more effective. the system can fire to a different cartridges. it has a much more intelligent system on board. if i fired the first cartridge, i get one dark. -- dart. that is not going to be effective. the officer will not have the desired effect. by firing the second bay, any dart completes the loop. that was when the first major
changes that we made. the second major change is that we believe not deploying our device is the best way to go. if i have to shoot the device, that means i have escalated into force. on the x26, i would have to unload the cartridge, sparked the face of the weapon. it gets the attention of the suspect. then i would reload the cartridge. it is not very tactically sound. it is not safe for the officer or the suspect. in the x2, we designed a smart cartridge. in westminster, colorado, in a year's time, they would have won compliance from an art display. in the first month, they got three without having to deploy.
they are able to get the attention of the suspect and not have to use the use of force. that is extremely important for us. the art displayed gives us a voluntary surrender. the next thing we did is to make sure our weapons increase in accuracy. we increase the technology inside of that. we're able to move to a duel laser system. i can tell exactly were the top dart and bottom part are going. why is that important? we need to get in different muscle groups in the body. we need to overcome the muscles of the body to take that structure out. that gives us the ability to see where the top and bottom darts are going. now we have the ability --
technology has evolved. we are at a completely different place in technology. we now have the ability to do what is called charge of metering. that is like your cruise control in your car. without your cruise control, and you go up a hill and you have your foot on the gas, the car will slow down. it is not seeing that you are being consistent. the x2 has cruise control. no matter what the system is, that individual does not have a shirt on or has a heavy thick jackets, the system has the ability to monitor that, measure it, and deployed be affected charge to that individual. the x26 is about 100 micro coolants. what we have done with the x2 is further refined the art
technology. it is 63 micro coolants. we made it more efficient and safer. it is like saying the honda to thousand three is not a safe vehicle for you to drive. -- 2003 is not a safe vehicle free to drive. we have worked with some of the industry individuals out there to develop technology to make sure it complies with commission's decisions on how to compete -- deployed it. we now have a battery that allows you to have an automatic five second shot off. an officer deploys it, keeps the trigger down, and gives an extended duration. it allows the system after five seconds, it automatically shuts off. the officer has to release the trigger and be engaged.
we put more accountability in the system. that system is in our camera system. from accountability standpoint, you had a greater capability of telling exactly what happened with the deployment. on the x26, if you pulled the trigger, i can tell you how long the battery percentage we had. it gives you a snapshot, but it does not tell you everything that happened. the x2 has an onboard computer that will tell you everything that system does. if i pulled the trigger, everything that i do and touch is recorded in that log. if i deployed that device on a suspect and i miss, the logs and cited there now run in
analytics and tells you if the charge was delivered to the suspect. if i make contact, i can tell you that in the system. i can tell you exactly what charge was delivered to the suspect. that is extremely critical. if i arm the system, on the x26, i can tell you pulled the trigger. that is about as much as i can tell you. i am trying to rush through this a little bit. i mentioned the camera side of that. we are the largest camera system out in the market today. we have about 56,000 camera systems. systems. 56,000 cameras on our devices.